For today’s top political stories, click here.
For fresh video on political reform, click here.
Thursday, January 18
January 18th, 2007 | Canadian Politics
January 18th, 2007 | Canadian Politics
For today’s top political stories, click here.
For fresh video on political reform, click here.
18 comments ↓
If the Minister of Natural Resources Garry Lunn, really believes that nuclear energy is the way to save the oil sands and I guess the planet from GHG, then Canadians must be prepared to accept the following facts about nuclear energy and how it impacts the oil sands production.
1. One Candu reactor can only produce enough steam to process approximately 150,000 barrels of heavy oil per day.
2. Each reactor will need to be built and operated within 15km of each mine site, since the steam generated by the reactor will turn to hot water after this distance.
Given the current production of 1.1 million barrels per days, this mean the oil sands will need 7 reactors today.
By 2015 with the planned production to rise to 3.0 million barrels per day, the oil sands will need 20 reactors!
Each of those 20 reactors will require tonnes of water (which is in short supply in that reqion) and each reactor will generate tonnes of radioactive waste
Finally an average price in today’s dollars of 1.5 to 3.0 billion dollars per reactor to build, I am sure the oil industry is not prepared to pony up this kind of money!
This means that the Canadian tax payer will pay and pay greatly if nuclear power is used in the oil sands
Neville,
Do you have some links to back up what you just wrote?
Are those 7 big reactors or 7 small reactors?
Tones of water? How many? I have a few tones of water in my backyard pool.
As for the last statement, about the industry not being ready to pony up the money, I know for a fact that’s a lie.
Your other assertions are so vague /imprecise, I can’t call them lies yet. I am waiting for details before squashing them.
Nevelle, at todays prices 150,000 barrells is approximately 7.5 million dollars a day per reactor.
Further, who said we wanted to build candu reactors. They’re not that safe, have waste and terrorism issues but do produce steam which can be used for oil extraction.
Without them however, how many tons of coal toes it take to produce 150,000 barrels of oil. What is the co2 impact of all that coal.
Water usage does not go up nor down, as the amount of water required to separate oil from sand is fairly constant already.
Pebble bed reactors, however, can generate significant quantites of energy, long distances away from the oil sands, where technical labour required to operate them is more feasibly attracted.
They also don’t have terrorism problems with waste being stolen as processing spent fuel balls into something fisionable is nearly impossible.
They don’t use water (they use helium) and they are being widely deployed in China.
As for industry pony’ing up. Since when do power consumers become responsible for being power producers. This is why we have an energy market and nuclear has proven itself to be cost-effective.
It’s time to warm up to the facts that new nuclear technologies are safe, pollute less (even with waste considered) and don’t contribute to global warming.
They’re not perfect, but theres no other solutions.
Neville, that’s quite disheartening. What is the source of your first statistic?
Bernanke: Baby boomers threaten economy
Fed chief says failure to deal with aging population could hurt economy.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/18/news/economy/bernanke.reut/index.htm?postversion=2007011812
Need a job? Spy agency recruiting
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/167631
Neville,
Good points. Do you have some links to the sources? I would like to quote them to some friends, but need the source material.
The Calgary37 Report
for January 18, 2007
Exclusive to the Garth Turner Weblog
Calgary needs your help!
Today I am going to discuss job and investment opportunities in Calgary.
Over the past few days, the City of Calgary Municipal Government has publicly admitted that they need a lot of new white and blue-collar workers to fill vacancies. The emergency services: EMS, Fire and Police all have openings for experienced persons. The Police also need some helicopter pilots. Calgary Transit needs 70 new drivers. Most other city departments have a variety of vacancies. In most cases, these are well paid union jobs.
Unfortunately, there is one key problem for those who would like to move to Calgary or Alberta. There is very little suitable and/or affordable housing for you to live in. If you already know someone living in Calgary, you might be able to arrange some type of temporary accommodation in order to get you started on a new job. If money is no object, then you can probably find something expensive that will meet your needs.
Calgary has been expanding by building out into the country with tracts of single-family houses. The current mayor is in love with urban sprawl. For many years, City Council has been reluctant to allow high density housing projects. This type of expansion puts pressure on the supporting infrastructure since it can never catch up.
There are many older districts near the downtown core that could be redeveloped by using a variety of high density buildings. However, building this close to the core means that there would be many zoning issues and concerns from adjacent communities that slows down projects like this.
I happen to live in an older community that is an enclave outside the core that would be suitable for a broad ranging redevelopment plan. Depending on the time of day, it is only a 15-30 minute drive from here into the downtown core. I have given a lot of thought on how this area could be redeveloped. A really creative planner and architect could really build a modern community with a lot of benefits for the residents and workers.
It could be possible to build 6-12 high rise office buildings that would be adjacent to a future LRT line. It could be possible to build a wide range of rental accommodation ranging from 20-story apartment buildings to buildings with 1-person sleeping cubicles. There is room for a high-level educational facility complete with dormitories for students. There is room for sports facilities including some domes.
With the support of the local Community and City Council approval for a Redevelopment Permit, this could be a fast-track project with multiple Phases being built at the same time. However, this project requires temporary accommodation for the residents who have to move out from their existing homes but still want to live in or near the community. The age range of houses in this area ranges from 1940 to 2000.
The view looking to the west would be mountains. The view to the east is the CPR mainline and an old low level industrial area. This means that there could also be some opportunities to redevelop parts of this industrial area.
From time to time there has been talk of moving the CPR mainline to the outskirts of Calgary. With a new Premier in Edmonton, and the continuing need for a ring road around Calgary, these two transportation projects could be joined together.
Moving the CPR mainline could present some additional developmental opportunities.
In another part of the city, there is a possible opportunity to build a roadway that could be operated as a toll road.
Are there any developers out there with a variety of different building expertise who would be willing to form a consortium in order to invest in and to redevelop a large tract of existing housing in the City of Calgary into one of the most modern and still affordable communities in Canada?
Thanks for your help.
Do this again, and I’m going to charge you for the space. — Garth
“Good points. Do you have some links to the sources? I would like to quote them to some friends, but need the source material.”
Sources? It’s all courtesy of the fairies in his butt.
Here’s the thing – you can’t call them ‘facts’ when you make them up as you go along.
There are a number of government and industry sources that provide in detail how both the CANDU 6 and the newer CANDU ARC 700 reactors work.
However for a quick summary of the key issues with respect to using nuclear power in the oil sands please see the following link
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/realitycheck/sheppard/20070111.html
Another link
And some more data
From about 2003 various proposals have been made to use nuclear power to produce steam for extraction of oil from Alberta’s northern oilsand (tarsand) deposits. At present a lot of natural gas is used – about 30 cubic metres per barrel of oil. With projections of three million barrels per day by 2016, a great deal of gas is used and the cost exposure is increasing dramatically.
The Canadian Energy Research Institute predicts an increase in gross bitumen production from 1.2 million barrels per day in 2006 to 3.8 million by 2020, with supply costs (natural gas, materials, labour, plus 10% return on investment) averaging C$ 7.5 billion per year.
One proposal from Energy Alberta Corp. suggested that a single CANDU 6 reactor configured to produce 75% steam and 25% electricity would replace 6 million cubic metres per day of natural gas and support production of 175-200,000 barrels per day of oil. It would also save the emission of 3.3 million tonnes of CO2 per year.
The main problem is that a nuclear plant is a long-life fixture, and mining of oilsands proceeds across the landscape, giving rise to very long steam transmission lines and consequent loss of efficiency.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip03.htm
Here are some links that provide in detail how nuclear energy will be used in the production of syncrude at the Canadian Oil Sands
http://www.neb.gc.ca/energy/EnergyReports/EMAOilSandsOpportunitiesChallenges2015_2006/EMAOilSandsOpportunities2015Canada2006_e.pdf
http://www.bus.ualberta.ca/CABREE/pdf/2005%20Fall/BUEC%20463/Rodenburg-Alternatives-BUEC463.pdf
It is important to remember only smaller and older CANDU 6 reactor has ever been built. The newer and cheaper CANDU ARC 700 has not been built.
And I agree CANDU technology is generally considered old and mature and is not widely used throughout the world.
Neville,
Thanks for the links!
Achnad,
“Sources? It’s all courtesy of the fairies in his butt.”
Seems the fairies have sources, but you do not?
Just in case still believe I am making these facts up, please see below (links are included). Further I provided a link whereby you can down a ppt presentation from the company in charge of selling the idea of nuclear plants to the oil sands company. (Energy Alberta Corp).
So next time Gary Lunn talks about nuke plants and oil sands, remind youself we are talking about doubling the number of nuke plants in Canada by 2015.
…..
Firm pushing nuke plants to heat sticky oilsands
Susan Ruttan
The Edmonton Journal
Friday, April 14, 2006
EDMONTON – A new Calgary company aims to put a nuclear power plant in Alberta’s oilsands, and claims it has public support for the move.
Energy Alberta Corp. is currently in negotiations with several big oil companies in the Fort McMurray area, owner Wayne Henuset said in an interview Thursday. If it nails a deal with one of them, it could start the process of getting regulatory approval next spring.
Henuset founded the company in October with co-owner Hank Swartout, who is currently CEO of Precision Drilling.
Henuset said the high prices of oil and natural gas now make building a $2.8-billion nuclear plant attractive to oilsands companies. The plant would be a Candu-6 reactor that would allow the participating oil company to produce 200,000 barrels a day of oil.
“There’s a need for about eight of them (reactors) up there,” he said.
Nuclear power would be used to create the steam that is used to heat the oilsands bitumen, so it can be pumped to the surface. It would replace current energy sources such as burning natural gas, which is becoming increasingly expensive, he said.
Henuset said Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is a partner in the project. Atomic Energy, the national nuclear reactor company, has been proposing a reactor for the oilsands since 2003.
sruttan@thejournal.canwest.com © The
Edmonton Journal 2006
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=fcf1c814-84fb-40f6-b6fe-cf211d002b22&k=6642
Here is a more recent ppt presentation from the Energy Alberta Corp
http://www.energyroundtable.org/downloads/2006/Wayne_Henuset_EAC_Sept06.ppt
Neville, I think they will have a hard time with on-site steam-nuclear plants in the oil sands.
Not the least of which is staffing and logistics.
I’d rather see some other forms of safer nuclear technology deployed near red-deer and able to draw staffing from both Edmonton and Calgary.
The purpose would be to produce electrical energy that can be converted to steam more easily onsite. You lose a fair amount of efficiency in the process, but it might make up for it in logistics, safety and waste.
My money’s on pebble bed.
Kevin
I did not know much about the pebble bed reactor design until now.
For anybody that is interested in learning more about this type of reactor please see the following link
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/10/abouat_pebble_b.html#more
It obvious that CANDU does not use this type of technology. Only the South Africans and the Chinese have the technology. If any of the oil sands companies decide to import this technology, this will put them offside with the Minister of Natural Resources and his vision as Canada as Energy Superpower.
I agree that pebble bed nuclear reactor technology looks promising but under the current political structure we will not see it being used in the Canadian oil sands.
We are kind of stuck with CANDU. Maybe they should change their name to CANDU NOT
Achnad, I think you owe Neville an apology. He’s done his homework. Apparently you haven’t. Enough said
Neville, the wikipedia entry has some good information about who is using PBMRs
Here